Permit required to keep ............

[arthur]

Myzo is correct, but I am too disinterested to chase up the chapter and verse

This wasn't always the case . . in Qld at least . . where mutations of native species (whether approved for aviculture or not) were fair game

A long time ago a chap I knew took a 'white' (actually very heavily pied) black swan from the wild . . all cosher

But I think things started to get interesting, and he swapped said swan for some 'high-range' parrots, interstate

I believe that offspring off the 'white' bird still exist in a bird park/ zoo in SA



Another tale that comes to mind concerns a parrot keeper (in another state) who explained the presence of some not so cosher birds as being offspring of mutation parents which had died

[vettepilot_6]

Myzo is correct, but I am too disinterested to chase up the chapter and verse

I have downloaded said regulations and typed in mutation in search the only thing that came up was the following.....

Nature Conservation Act 1992.....
sect 92.. Restriction on breeding etc. hybrids of protected animals
(1) A person must not—
(a) knowingly breed a hybrid or mutation of a protected
animal; or
(b) abandon a hybrid or mutation of a protected animal in
the wild;
other than under a regulation or exemption under a regulation.
Maximum penalty—165 penalty units.

[arthur]

Nature Conservation Act 1992.....
sect 92.. Restriction on breeding etc. hybrids of protected animals
(1) A person must not—
(a) knowingly breed a hybrid or mutation of a protected
animal;
Maximum penalty—165 penalty units.

This restriction is in itself very interesting, and underscores the complete lack of understanding by those 'who must be obeyed'

At least 90% of Qld aviculturists knowingly breed mutations day in and day out . . and ipso facto are lawbreakers . .

The mind boggles

[vettepilot_6]

This restriction is in itself very interesting, and underscores the complete lack of understanding by those 'who must be obeyed'

At least 90% of Qld aviculturists knowingly breed mutations day in and day out . . and ipso facto are lawbreakers . .

The mind boggles

So I if I cant work out if Mutation/Hybrids need a licence, How do they know??? And yes the mind does boggle, I don't thing the left hand really knows what the right hand is doing? it seems to me to be pretty ambiguous, as it does not state anywhere this as a fact (mutations to be registered/licenced)
(Reminds me of the Taxation Department...they state that all tax is Voluntary lol)

[finchbreeder]

Not knowingly breeding Hybrids to keep the viability of species intact being part of the law I get. But mutations? Hey nature does them so what gives? Yes nature does occassionally do hybrids too, but she makes them sterile so they are not self perpetuating. In both cases we the breeders are capable of doing these in far greater numbers (cause and effect) than nature.
LML

[TomDeGraaff]

The relevant regulations may have a definition of the term "hybrid" in another spot. Also, maybe there is an exemption for certain species re mutations. Very restrictive on the mutation front, though.

There are some instances of "hybrid zones" where species (or perhaps subspecies) interbreed. I have often been told (in usually obstinate language) by mutation lorikeet breeders that there are natural hybrids of rainbows and scalies (any others?) all around Currumbin. In a huge population, that is not a problem. However, to our limited aviary populations, it is.

I remember the Queensland regulations. Two mutant birds can produce normals if the mutation is dominant or if two different mutations are mated together. That loophole was scientifically stupid. I'm glad it has been cleared up.

In Victoria,I believe that if a hybrid occurs accidentally, it is supposed to be listed as the species (presumably one of the parents) which it most closely resembles. If this is still true,then it is truly misleading. Hybrids should have their own, single code number so they can be recorded as such imo. They should, I feel, be given status so that they and their potential damage can be noted and recorded.

NSW is the main problem with hybrid birds but I digress....

[vettepilot_6]

The relevant regulations may have a definition of the term "hybrid" in another spot. Also, maybe there is an exemption for certain species re mutations. Very restrictive on the mutation front, though.

There are some instances of "hybrid zones" where species (or perhaps subspecies) interbreed. I have often been told (in usually obstinate language) by mutation lorikeet breeders that there are natural hybrids of rainbows and scalies (any others?) all around Currumbin. In a huge population, that is not a problem. However, to our limited aviary populations, it is.

I remember the Queensland regulations. Two mutant birds can produce normals if the mutation is dominant or if two different mutations are mated together. That loophole was scientifically stupid. I'm glad it has been cleared up.

In Victoria,I believe that if a hybrid occurs accidentally, it is supposed to be listed as the species (presumably one of the parents) which it most closely resembles. If this is still true,then it is truly misleading. Hybrids should have their own, single code number so they can be recorded as such imo. They should, I feel, be given status so that they and their potential damage can be noted and recorded.

NSW is the main problem with hybrid birds but I digress....

All good...but still doesn't make it clear....Do Mutations/Hybrids need a Licence to keep?? It does not state it anywhere in their Nature Conservation Act...other then what I posted above.... And I could go on about Acts not been Law also but thats an
other story....

[vettepilot_6]

Well I have gone over the list of birds requiring permits etc on the Nature Conservation Act , and it does not state anywhere or mention anywhere about Native mutation/hybrid birds requiring a licence or permit etc.. so I can assume (unless others can point me in the right direction) that they do not require one....

[TomDeGraaff]

Your own research answers your own question I fear....


Nature Conservation Act 1992.....
sect 92.. Restriction on breeding etc. hybrids of protected animals
(1) A person must not—

(a) knowingly breed a hybrid or mutation of a protected
animal;

or
(b) abandon a hybrid or mutation of a protected animal in
the wild;
other than under a regulation or exemption under a regulation.
Maximum penalty—165 penalty units.

Bummer